Appendices - Agenda Item 13
Cabinet
May 2012
Agenda Item No______11_______
Coastal Works Measured Term Contract
Summary
This report outlines the need for and procurement process
undertaken for Coastal defence small scale repair and maintenance
works for the coast under the Council’s Coast Projection
responsibilities.
Conclusions:
Officers consider that the Measured Term Contract is the best way to
procure small scale coastal works. A procurement exercise has been
undertaken and the successful tenderer is Renosteel Construction.
Subject to approval by Cabinet, the contract can commence on 1st
June 2012.
Recommendations:
That Cabinet agree to award the Coastal Measured Term Contract
to Renosteel Construction Ltd.
Cabinet member(s):
Contact Officer, telephone number,
and e-mail:
1.
Ward(s) affected: All coastal wards
Jill Fisher/ Brian J Farrow 01263 516193.
brian.farrow@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Background
1.1. The Council is the Coast Protection Authority for the coastline between Kelling Hard and
Cart Gap, Happisburgh. This stretch of coast is made up of some 34km of soft glacial cliffs and
sandy beaches which are subject to natural erosion from the sea and landslips from ground
water. About 8.5km of this area is fully projected by sea defences with other areas partially or
undefended. The total value of the NNDC defences is in the region of £130m.
1.2. Under the Coast Protection Act 1949 North Norfolk District Council has permissive powers
to undertake coast protection works on its frontage. The Council undertakes a large amount of
minor repair and maintenance of its coast protection structures on an on-going basis and the
revenue budget for this work is currently £320,000 per annum. Approximately £100,000 of this
budget is spent on small scale and reactive repair works. Examples of work include repairs to
sea walls, wooden groynes and revetments, beach access ramps, promenade railings and flood
gates.
1.3. Whilst larger projects and those projects where it is possible to obtain a fixed price are put
out to tender, there are a large number of small scale works and reactive work which are
required. The nature of this work is heavily dependent on variables such as weather and tide
conditions and on beach access so that a measured term contract is likely to represent a more
efficient way of working with better value for money.
1.4. A Measured Term Contract (MTC) is an arrangement whereby a Contractor undertakes to
carry out a variety of works (in this case coastal) over a period of time within a defined
geographical area and where the works are subsequently valued at rates contained in an
agreed priced schedule of rates.
1.5 It is therefore desirable to let a Measured Term Contract for three years (with an option to
extend a further 2 years), with a potential (but not assured) value of approximately £100,000.
Cabinet
May 2012
Measured Term Contracts are appropriate in cases where employers have a regular flow of
maintenance and minor works that can be carried out by a single contractor over a specified
period of time where the work is valued on the basis of an agreed schedule of rates.
2.
Works Procurement Process
2.1. An expression of interest for the Measured Term Contract was advertised in the Eastern
Daily Press and on the North Norfolk District Council website between the 5th and 19th
September 2010.The Pre Qualification Questionnaire process included financial, public liability
and health and safety checks and four contractors were short-listed. These four contractors
were then required to complete a series of four written costed exercises. Each exercise required
the contractor to define how he would undertake each piece of work recording any specific
difficulties as well as writing Method Statements, Risk Assessments and completing record
sheets detailing all of the plant labour and material costs. The exercise is provided in Appendix
D.
2.2 The purpose of the exercise was to enable the Contractor to demonstrate his knowledge
and awareness of coastal works to an informed audience and to indicate how the agreed
schedule of rates might typically translate into costs for individual jobs. Importantly it enabled
the client to interrogate the Contractor about his chosen solutions and costs.
2.2. Tenders applications were received from the six contractors shown below and the four
shortlisted contractors were interviewed by a panel of officers on 23rd April 2012.
1
2
3
4
5
6
C G Godfrey
Fisher Bullen
MacKinnon Construction
Reeve Property
Renosteel Construction
Thrower & Rutland
Withdrew from the Tender process
Failed to return tender by deadline
Shortlisted & interviewed
Shortlisted & interviewed
Shortlisted & interviewed
Shortlisted & interviewed
2.3. It is intended that the contract will commence on 1st June 2012. When let, the contract will
enable the Coastal Engineer who will be the Contract Administrator to commission small and
reactive works through the contract. The Property Programme and Project Manager will action
as CDM Coordinator for the contract and be responsible for ensuring the Health and Safety Plan
is adequate, and will undertake contract performance management producing an annual
performance report in March of each year.
3.
Tender Results
3.1. The results of the competitive process were scored in terms of cost, quality, methodology,
experience and health and safety. The scoring scheme and assessment grid is provided in
EXEMPT Appendix 1.
3.2. The contract is awarded on a schedule of rates, but in order to understand which
contractors would offer best value for money, it was necessary to test how each contractor
would price different types of work. For this reason the tenderers were asked to complete
examples of how they would undertake works and price them so that officers could be sure of
both estimated costs and methods of work as outlined in para 2.2. Having undertaken
assessment of the exercises and through the interview process, the contractor who performed
best in the appraisal process is Renosteel Construction.
3.3. The contract will be let as a standard JCT Measured Term Contract (2011). The Joint
Contracts Tribunal is a standard contract for the construction industry.
Cabinet
4.
May 2012
Finance
4.1. The Coastal Defence budget is £320,000 per annum. It is estimated that small works let
through the Measured Term Contract will be of the order of £100,000 per annum. This
represents a large programme of small scale repairs and reactive works. The larger repair
schemes are funded from the remainder of the budget.
5.
Sustainability
5.1 There are no sustainability issues in relation to letting this contract.
6.
Equality and Diversity
6.1 There are no equality and diversity issues or opportunities.
7.
Risks
7.1. It is considered that the Measured Term Contract will provide a more cost-effective method
of procuring small scale coastal works. Any individual works over the value of £7,000 will require
a variation instruction from the Contract Administrator.
7.2. The largest risk would be the failure of the contractor to perform against the contract.
However, the contract includes annual performance reviews which will include KPIs for standard
of work, response times, health and safety performance, contractor diligence and value for
money. There is a clause in the contract for either side to terminate the contract with an eight
week notice period.
8.
Crime and Disorder
8.1. There are no crime and disorder issues.
9
Conclusions
9.1. Officers consider that the Measured Term Contract is the best way to procure small scale
coastal works. A procurement exercise has been undertaken and the successful tenderer is
Renosteel Construction. Subject to approval by Cabinet, the contract can commence on 1st
June 2012.
Measured Term Contract for Small Scale
Coastal Defence Works
Annual Contractors Performance Report for year one:
To end of June 2013
North Norfolk District Council
Coast, Localities and Assets Department
Holt Road
Cromer
Norfolk
NR27 9EN
01263 516054
Report prepared by
R J Tanner August 2013
1
Introduction
In the latter part of 2011 the Head of Assets and Localities along with the Coastal
Engineer identified the requirement for a process that allowed for one contractor to
be issued with multiple orders to undertake works of relatively low value whilst still
satisfying the Authorities Standing Orders and Procurement Practices.
After a lengthy but robust procurement exercise a three year Measured Term
Contract with optional of two by one year extensions was awarded to Renosteel
Construction Ltd of North Walsham.
The form of contract is the JCT Measured Term Contract 2011, executed as a deed.
Summary
This report details how the Contractor has fulfilled his contractual obligations after the
first twelve months by being scored against a set of Key Performance Indicators
included in the original tender document under Sections 5 & 6 with the methodology
for measuring the KPI’s defined in the Measured Term Manual


Section 5 Performance Indicators and Monitoring
Section 6 The Contract.
Section 5.2 States:The Employer will produce an annual report based on a series of key performance
indicators that will produce an overall score.
The KPI’s will comprise of the following:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Standard of work
Response times
Health & Safety
Contractor diligence
Value for money
max score 30
max score 30
max score 30
max score 30
max score 30
Section 5.3 States:The Employer shall set a benchmark score for satisfactory performance under the
conditions of the contract. This benchmark score shall be 120. If the contractors
assessed score is 20% below this target the contractor will be invited to submit a
proposal to increase the score back to the target threshold.
Should the contractors score be more than 20% below the target threshold the
employer shall consider suspension of the contract until corrective measures can be
agreed or under extreme circumstances shall consider termination of the contract.
Key Performance indicators scoring
A Standards of Work
Requirement: The materials used shall comply in all respects with the industry norm.
 They shall be fit for purpose and acquired from a reputable source.
2




Where appropriate they shall comply with national standards.
They shall be incorporated into the works using industry standard techniques.
All plant and equipment shall have appropriate up to date test certification.
Where it is appropriate all labour shall have current certification to use the
appropriate plant and tools.
 The completed works must be fit for purpose and satisfy the description for which
they were undertaken.
Standard of work: Max permitted score 30:
Materials have been carefully selected and sourced from reputable merchants and
have been supplied with the appropriate certification where required.
All works have been completed fit for purpose and as indicated by the instruction and
no return visits to works have been necessary due to poor standard of workmanship
or faulty or defective materials.
The contractor has regularly forwarded new certification of training of his employees
to generally improve their skill level.
Re visiting works has only been necessary when tidal conditions or poor weather has
forced a premature completion.
From Beginning June 2012 till end June 2013 a total of 115 individual orders were
raised and issued.
Number of orders Issued
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
16
13
10
8
J
A
S
8
9
9
9
O
N
D
J
8
8
9
8
F
M
A
M
J
Months July 2013 – June 2013
Scoring: The Contractor has achieved a score of 30 for this section.
B Response Times:
Requirement: - If the required response times are met the maximum score should be
awarded.
Works orders are issued with a scale of response times.
“A”
4hr response
“B”
48hr response
“C”
120hr response
“D”
by arrangement
3
Note: - 115 works orders issued
“A”
15 (7 of which were out of hours or weekend)
“B”
11
“C”
33
“D”
56
As some of the works are urgent (within four hrs.) it has meant having to deal with
sometimes difficult weather and/or access conditions. Regardless of this the
performance response target was achieved for every order issued.
Response Type
60
56
50
40
30
33
20
10
0
15
11
A 4hr
B 48hr
C 120hr
D other
Scoring: The Contractor has achieved a score of 30 for this section.
C Health & Safety:
Requirement: - The H&S performance indicator will be considered to be fully met if
the MTC HSE Site visit report Form completed by the CDMc and site specific checks
by the H&S Team show no negative comments.
Out of a total of 115 orders raised for the period a random sample of 35 sites were
chosen for a Health, Safety and Environmental site audit by the contract CDMc. This
equates to 30.40% of the contract works.
The reports have a rating system for general assessment management systems and
general assessment site operations with category ratings of good, fair, poor,
unsatisfactory.
4
General assessment management systems
97% achieved
35
30
34
25
20
15
10
1
5
0
Good
Fair
0
Poor
0
Unsatisfactory
General assessment site operations
88% achieved
35
30
25
31
20
15
10
5
0
Good
4
0
Fair
Poor
0
Unsatisfactory
Scoring: The Contractor has achieved a score of 28.8 for this section.
In addition to the above the contractor continues to train their operatives and
regularly forwards new certification and has also appointed an independent
consultant to monitor H&S performance as well as having an occupational health
surveillance monitoring regime in place.
Overview of Contractors Health and Safety performance by Corporate Health &
Safety:
Although time constraints have meant the Corporate Health and Safety Team have
not been able to make as many site visits as we would have liked, when
unannounced visits have be made the health and safety standards employed by the
contractor have been of a high standard. There has been appropriate protective
5
equipment in use, good, effective separation of works from members of the public,
and risk assessment and method statements available on site and being followed by
operatives.
Coastal Management have carried out a significant number of inspections and the
reports received have always been positive.
There have been no accidents sustained during the contract works which evidences
the suitability of the controls taken by the contractor.
(Ian Wheeler 21.08.13)
Contractor Diligence:
Requirement: - This is a somewhat abstract concept but will be reflected by the
general response the contractor and his labour force apply in what can be best
described as pride in their workmanship. It should be reflected in looking beyond the
obvious and working in partnership with the client to produce the best cost effective
results. It means questioning the instruction if there is doubt or lack of clarity and
where possible suggesting better ways of achieving the required result. It might mean
the need to expand the work to pick up a similar problem in an adjacent area. In
almost every piece of work there is a quality issue and we should all strive to deliver
a top quality product.
Comments:Some works are planned thus allowing more time for pre start site visits to undertake
surveying, designing, ordering materials and planning to enable mobilisation on a
specific date and time. This is particularly important when the works are affected by
the tides.
This is not the case with responsive works that are generally required where there is
an immediate threat of injury or significant damage to property or the sea defences
themselves.
The contractor has in fact demonstrated high levels of diligence in the following:
 Thorough understanding of the North Norfolk coastline, tides and weather
conditions.
 Competence and pride in work
 Willingness
 Communication and co-operation both with the client and the public.
 Taking instruction.
 Offering advice, alternative methodology and materials.
 Thoroughness and attention to detail.
 Patience.
 Responsibility.
 Highlighting potential areas of future sea defence failure.
 Knowledge of compliance with legislation pertaining to construction.
 Ability to instil confidence within the client.
Comment by Russell Tanner: 6
I have been actively involved with a majority of the works undertaken including some
urgent out of hours works and I feel comfortable awarding the maximum score:
Scoring: The Contractor has achieved a score of 30 for this section.
Value for Money:
Requirement: - The contract has been won in open tender thus all the rates
contained therein are considered to be competitive. The time spent on the work and
the manner of its execution are all subject to inspection therefore the Value for
Money KPI will be awarded if all of the preceding KPI’s are above the 80% mark.
The contract was awarded after a thorough and robust procurement process with
Renosteel offering the lowest rates. The rates are fixed for the first two years.
A monthly valuation along with daywork sheets and materials / plant hire invoices is
forwarded first for authentication by the Contract Administrator and then for checking
and verification by the Coast Protection Officer.
It is not until this process is complete and any qualifications resolved is the payment
certificate released to the contractor.
Council Officers visiting the works also record men, materials and plant on the site
that day for subsequent checking against the contractor submissions at a later date.
To date the systems remain totally accurate and true.
In accordance with the Monitoring and Procedures manual section 7/6:
Scoring: The Contractor has achieved a score of 30 for this section.
Conclusion and overall score:
The contractor has been audited as above and has returned the following
Scores:
Standard of work:
Response times:
Health & Safety:
Contractor diligence:
Value for money:
30
30
28.8
30
30
Total score:
148.8
Conclusion
The implementation of a measured term contract has proved to be a very successful
tool for undertaking small scale coastal works. It has significantly reduced what was
becoming an administrative burden and has proved to be a cost effective efficient
tool for undertaking small scale coastal works.
Equally the Contractor has demonstrated a professional attitude at all times and has
become an integral part of the team delivering a cost effective small coastal works
service to the council. I see no pressing contractual issues needing to be addressed
there is however always room to improve the planning, timing and consultation areas
of the works.
B J Farrow
Contract Administrator
20th August 20
7
Snapshots of works undertaken during the 2012/13
Lifting Drilling Rig ~ Sheringham
:
Loudwater Court, Drilling rig:
Cromer Promenade, de-weeding
brickwork
Mundesley beach, filling geotextile bags
to provide cliff toe support
8
Happisburgh, laying geotextile:
Happisburgh, placing rock armour:
Happisburgh – Completed Rock bund
Off-loading rock armourstone
9
Measured Term Contract for Small Scale
Coastal Defence Works
Annual Contractors Performance Report for year two:
To end of June 2014
1
North Norfolk District Council
Coast, Localities and Assets Department
Holt Road
Cromer
Norfolk
NR27 9EN
01263 516054
Report prepared by
R J Tanner August 2015
Introduction
In the latter part of 2011 the Head of Assets and Localities along with the Coastal
Engineer identified the requirement for a process that allowed for one contractor to
be issued with multiple orders to undertake works of relatively low value whilst still
satisfying the Authorities Standing Orders and Procurement Practices.
After a lengthy but robust procurement exercise a three year Measured Term
Contract with optional of two by one year extensions was awarded to Renosteel
Construction Ltd of North Walsham.
The form of contract is the JCT Measured Term Contract 2011, executed as a deed.
Summary
This report details how the Contractor has fulfilled his contractual obligations after the
2nd twelve month period by being scored against a set of Key Performance Indicators
included in the original tender document under Sections 5 & 6 with the methodology
for measuring the KPI’s defined in the Measured Term Contract Manual.
Section 5 Performance Indicators and Monitoring
Section 6 The Contract.
.
In the 1st period up to June 2014 the Contractor returned a score of 148.8


Section 5.2 States:The Employer will produce an annual report based on a series of key performance
indicators that will produce an overall score.
The KPI’s will comprise of the following:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Standard of work
Response times
Health & Safety
Contractor diligence
Value for money
max score 30
max score 30
max score 30
max score 30
max score 30
2
Section 5.3 States:The Employer shall set a benchmark score for satisfactory performance under the
conditions of the contract. This benchmark score shall be 120. If the contractors
assessed score is 20% below this target the contractor will be invited to submit a
proposal to increase the score back to the target threshold.
Should the contractors score be more than 20% below the target threshold the
employer shall consider suspension of the contract until corrective measures can be
agreed or under extreme circumstances shall consider termination of the contract.
Orders raised
Within the year period from the Beginning July 2013 till end June 2014 a total of 136
individual orders were raised. They were split across the year as shown below.
Key Performance indicators scoring
A Standards of Work
Requirement: The materials used shall comply in all respects with the industry norm.
 They shall be fit for purpose and acquired from a reputable source.
 Where appropriate they shall comply with national standards.
 They shall be incorporated into the works using industry standard techniques.
 All plant and equipment shall have appropriate up to date test certification.
 Where it is appropriate all labour shall have current certification to use the
appropriate plant and tools.
 The completed works must be fit for purpose and satisfy the description for which
they were undertaken.
3
Standard of work: Max permitted score 30:
Materials have been carefully selected and sourced from reputable merchants and
have been supplied with the appropriate certification where required.
The contractor has regularly forwarded new certification of training of his employees
to generally improve their skill level.
Re visiting works has only been necessary when tidal conditions or poor weather has
forced a premature completion, with one exception. Works at the Hermitage in
Bacton (order number NN11216) had to be revisited due to poor workmanship,
following a complaint from the property owner. The work was rectified at the
contractor’s expense.
From Beginning July 2013 till end June 2014 a total of 136 individual orders were
raised and issued of these only 1 order had a questionable standard of work and this
was subsequently rectified. As a percentage 99.3% of the works were completed
without fault, with a good standard of work. The score achieved for this section is
therefore 99.3%of the maximum permitted score.
Standard of work
Scoring: The Contractor has achieved a score of 29.8 for this section.
4
B Response Times:
Requirement: - If the required response times are met the maximum score should be
awarded.
Works orders are issued with a scale of response times.
“A”
4hr response
“B”
48hr response
“C”
120hr response
“D”
by arrangement
Note: - 136 works orders issued
“A”
16 (3 of which were out of hours or weekend)
“B”
9
“C”
2
“D”
109
As some of the works are urgent (within four hrs.) it has meant having to deal with
sometimes difficult weather and/or access conditions. Regardless of this the
performance response target was achieved for every order issued.
Response times
Scoring: The Contractor has achieved a score of 30 for this section.
5
C Health & Safety:
Requirement: - The H&S performance indicator will be considered to be fully met if
the MTC HSE Site visit report Form completed by the CDMc and site specific checks
by the H&S Team show no negative comments.
Out of a total of 136 orders raised for the period a random sample of 17 sites were
chosen for a Health, Safety and Environmental site audit by the contract CDMc. This
equates to 12.5% of the contract works.
The reports have a rating system for general assessment management systems and
general assessment site operations with category ratings of good, fair, poor,
unsatisfactory.
From the Health, Safety and Environment site audits the contractor scored 100%.
However there was a RIDDOR report submitted , following a minor injury, which was
not directly related to a work activity. With this in mind the score has been revised to
99.3% (135/136).
Scoring: The Contractor has achieved a score of 29.8 for this section.
In addition to the above the contractor continues to train their operatives and
regularly forwards new certification and has also appointed an independent
consultant to monitor H&S performance as well as having an occupational health
surveillance monitoring regime in place.
6
Overview of Contractors Health and Safety performance by Corporate Health &
Safety:
The Corporate Health and Safety Team have relied upon the Coastal Management
Team to refer any concerns with regard to health and safety to them due to a
restructure of the Environmental Health Department that affected the team. As such
they have not been able to complete unannounced site visits, however where issues
were raised about safety concerns matters have been dealt with efficiently and
effectively, the health and safety standards employed by the contractor have been of
a high standard.
Coastal Management have carried out a significant number of inspections and the
reports received have always been positive.
One minor injury was reported but it did not relate directly to a work activity and
there was no need for further investigation.
Gemma Faircloth
Public Protection Manager
September 2014
7
Contractor Diligence:
Requirement: - This is a somewhat abstract concept but will be reflected by the
general response the contractor and his labour force apply in what can be best
described as pride in their workmanship. It should be reflected in looking beyond the
obvious and working in partnership with the client to produce the best cost effective
results. It means questioning the instruction if there is doubt or lack of clarity and
where possible suggesting better ways of achieving the required result. It might mean
the need to expand the work to pick up a similar problem in an adjacent area. In
almost every piece of work there is a quality issue and we should all strive to deliver
a top quality product.
Comments:Some works are planned thus allowing more time for pre start site visits to undertake
surveying, designing, ordering materials and planning to enable mobilisation on a
specific date and time. This is particularly important when the works are affected by
the tides.
This is not the case with responsive works that are generally required where there is
an immediate threat of injury or significant damage to property or the sea defences
themselves.
The contractor has in fact demonstrated high levels of diligence in the following:
 Thorough understanding of the North Norfolk coastline, tides and weather
conditions.
 Competence and pride in work
 Willingness
 Communication and co-operation both with the client and the public.
 Taking instruction.
 Offering advice, alternative methodology and materials.
 Thoroughness and attention to detail.
 Patience.
 Responsibility.
 Highlighting potential areas of future sea defence failure.
 Knowledge of compliance with legislation pertaining to construction.
 Ability to instil confidence within the client.
Comment by Andrew McCloud, Assistant Coastal Engineer:Following the tidal surge on the 5th December 2013, Renosteel were heavily involved
in repairs. Their willingness to undertake works quickly and effectively was key to
ensuring that large sections of the North Norfolk coastline were made safe and
reopened to the public as quickly as possible.
Their professionalism and high quality of work has been commented on by several
councillors, members of the public and other suppliers.
Scoring: The Contractor has achieved a score of 30 for this section.
8
Value for Money:
Requirement: - The contract has been won in open tender thus all the rates
contained therein are considered to be competitive. The time spent on the work and
the manner of its execution are all subject to inspection therefore the Value for
Money KPI will be awarded if all of the preceding KPI’s are above the 80% mark.
The contract was awarded after a thorough and robust procurement process with
Renosteel offering the lowest rates. The rates have been fixed for the first two years
and Renosteel have applied for and been granted an increase in the rates for the
third year. This increase is based on the Retail Price Index.
A monthly valuation along with daywork sheets and materials / plant hire invoices is
forwarded first for authentication by the Contract Administrator and then for checking
and verification by the Coast Protection Officer.
It is not until this process is complete and any qualifications resolved is the payment
certificate released to the contractor.
Council Officers visiting the works also record men, materials and plant on the site
that day for subsequent checking against the contractor submissions at a later date.
To date the systems remain totally accurate and true.
In accordance with the Monitoring and Procedures manual section 7/6:
Scoring: The Contractor has achieved a score of 30 for this section.
9
Conclusion and overall score:
The contractor has been audited as above and has returned the following
Scores:
Standard of work:
Response times:
Health & Safety:
Contractor diligence:
Value for money:
29.8
30
29.8
30
30
Total score:
149.6
Conclusion
The Measured Term Contract continues to demonstrate good value for money in
terms of efficiently procuring and implementing small scale works.
The efficiency of the contract procurement process was particularly impressive in the
post storm (Dec 5th 2013) recovery process where small scale remedial works were
implemented quickly and competently.
The advantages in reducing time spent on both process and procurement have
resulted in a reduction in management costs as well as implementing cost effective
works.
The MTC and its management was the subject of an external audit in 2014 with a
satisfactory report being given. There were two areas the auditors suggested might
improve the management of MTC and both ideas have been incorporated into the
contract.
B J Farrow
Contract Administrator
September 2014
10
Snapshots of works undertaken during the 2012/13
Groyne repairs
Revetment repairs
11
Installation of beach access steps
Repair of cliff steps
12
Installation of cliff toe protection
Repair of outfall pipe
13
Stabilisation of failing pile wall
Removal of historic defence
14